CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s91E06A92 { width:115.68%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCCA4659C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB553A920 { width:36.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD93B5825 { width:38.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s104F6669 { width:18.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s14AC249C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s63BEE5FC { width:36.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s69C19DCA { width:38.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA65D5DA { width:18.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 9 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 63623/19 Sevdiye ALTINÖZ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 14 November 2019 communicated on 20 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application essentially concerns a judicial practice of the civil courts, in the context of urgent expropriation proceedings, to order the parties to pay a lump sum to the opposing party in respect of legal fees. It further concerns the lack of statutory interest for the additional compensation from the date the applicants lost possession of their properties. As regards the order to pay legal fees to the opposing party, namely the administration, the applicants complain that such an order decreased the expropriation compensation awarded to them. As regards the lack of statutory interest for the additional compensation from the date they lost possession of their properties, the applicants argue that they suffered a financial loss, caused by the depreciation of the compensation awarded, due to the monetary inflation during the relevant period. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention with regard to the urgent expropriation proceedings conducted under file no. 2016/212? In the light of the Court’s findings in the cases of Dökmeci v. Turkey (no.   74155/14, 6 December 2016) and Musa Tarhan v. Turkey (no.   12055/17, 23 October 2018) did the applicants suffer an excessive individual burden in the proceedings registered under file no.   2016/212? APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality 1. Sevdiye ALTINÖZ 1938 Turkish 2. Muhittin ALTINÖZ 1965 Turkish 3. Beytullah ALTINÖZ 1963 Turkish 4. Mehmet ALTINÖZ 1967 Turkish 5. Necati ALTINÖZ 1958 Turkish